It is possible that a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not infallible. For instance, such a teaching may be universally held by the bishops, but the bishops may not all agree that the teaching should be held as definitive or infallible.

“Explicit claims to the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium first appeared in ecclesiastical documents in the 1863 apostolic letter Tuas libenter of Pius IX. That teaching was adapted at Vatican I and with a few exceptions received only cursory treatment in various dogmatic manuals in the period between Vatican I and Vatican II.3 Perhaps because of the conciliar definition on papal infallibility at Vatican I and Pius XII’s solemn definition in 1950 of the Assumption of Mary, most ecclesiological treatments of infallibility between the two councils focused on questions related to papal infallibility. Since Vatican II, however, discussion of infallibility and claims to its formal exercise have shifted to the infallibility of the college of bishops not while they are gathered in council but while dispersed throughout the world. This development needs to be considered in greater detail.”

“The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church's teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

“... Likewise, the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world' (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.”

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

The faith is not a set of lists, Father. This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I have asked for merely 2 or 3 instances of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium at work proclaiming infallible teaching, without issuing magisterial statements.

Not one person has been able to offer even one example.

I thought elijahmaria gave examples:

Among those which are proposed to us by the ordinary and universal Magisterium are: (1) the spirituality of the soul; (2) the particular judgment after death; (3) the entrustment of human beings to guardian angels; (4) that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the spiritual mother of all Christians; (5) the evil of murder of an innocent; (6) that it is never permitted to do evil (commit sin) that good might come of it.

I would also add:

1. The communion of Saints2. The resurrection of the bodyBoth of these are central to faith, but have never been formally and solemnly defined.

You omitted Limbo the material fire of purgatory.

Nope. Sorry. Those things are speculative and always have been.

I am sure that all the Catholics on this Forum who contend so well for their faith are aware of the Jesuit priest Fr Hardon (recently deceased and already on track for beatification.) Fr Hardon has been one of the pre-eminent apologists of the Catholic Faith over the last 40 years. His works are everywhere, on EWTN, etc., etc. Fr Hardon served as a consultant for the drafting of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992.

He flatly contradicts what you are saying....

"Writers in the Latin tradition are quite unanimous that the fire of purgatory is real and not metaphorical. They argue from the common teaching of the Latin Fathers, of some Greek Fathers, and of certain papal statements like that of Pope Innocent IV, who spoke of “a transitory fire” (DB 456)."

It is possible that a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not infallible. For instance, such a teaching may be universally held by the bishops, but the bishops may not all agree that the teaching should be held as definitive or infallible.

“Explicit claims to the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium first appeared in ecclesiastical documents in the 1863 apostolic letter Tuas libenter of Pius IX. That teaching was adapted at Vatican I and with a few exceptions received only cursory treatment in various dogmatic manuals in the period between Vatican I and Vatican II.3 Perhaps because of the conciliar definition on papal infallibility at Vatican I and Pius XII’s solemn definition in 1950 of the Assumption of Mary, most ecclesiological treatments of infallibility between the two councils focused on questions related to papal infallibility. Since Vatican II, however, discussion of infallibility and claims to its formal exercise have shifted to the infallibility of the college of bishops not while they are gathered in council but while dispersed throughout the world. This development needs to be considered in greater detail.”

“The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church's teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

“... Likewise, the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world' (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.”

It functions through the common everyday teaching of the bishops - who although dispersed throughout the world - propose in unison that a particular proposition is to be believed as divinely revealed (de fide credenda) or as definitively to be held (de fide tenenda).

It does so through the common daily teaching of the bishops, i.e., through what Cardinal Ratzinger called "non-defining acts" (see the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei), which are proposed diachronically and not merely synchronically.

It functions through the common everyday teaching of the bishops - who although dispersed throughout the world - propose in unison that a particular proposition is to be believed as divinely revealed (de fide credenda) or as definitively to be held (de fide tenenda).

It does so through the common daily teaching of the bishops, i.e., through what Cardinal Ratzinger called "non-defining acts" (see the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei), which are proposed diachronically and not merely synchronically.

17 It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.

It functions through the common everyday teaching of the bishops - who although dispersed throughout the world - propose in unison that a particular proposition is to be believed as divinely revealed (de fide credenda) or as definitively to be held (de fide tenenda).

It does so through the common daily teaching of the bishops, i.e., through what Cardinal Ratzinger called "non-defining acts" (see the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei), which are proposed diachronically and not merely synchronically.

We owe Apotheoun a thank you for his lucid explanation. But how come I knew this and none of our Catholic members seemed to?

Yes, thanks to Apotheoun, indeed! And to Mary!

As for "our Catholic members..."--lack of responding does *not* = lack of knowledge...necessarily. Some, though, did know. Knowledge can be held on many levels, from very superficial to very deep. And knowing something well does not always mean that any given individual is able to explain it clearly and adequately, as I sure you must know. Also, they may just not want to. I'll be the first to admit that I could not have explained it as well as Mary or Apotheoun. Not even close. I personally *try*, not always successfully, to not attempt to explain things I don't have the intellectual or theological "tools" for--especially in a forum like this where some people love nothing better than to play "gotcha" if even the slightest little error is made. But, since you say you knew, why didn't you explain it as clearly as they did? Or, were you just giving us a little quiz, Father ?

17 It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.

And this would be different from the sensus fidelium of the Orthodox, both in definitiveness and vagueness, how?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

17 It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.

And this would be different from the sensus fidelium of the Orthodox, both in definitiveness and vagueness, how?

Authority...That's an educated guess but I think it is a fair place to begin.

The ordinary and universal magisterium is a teaching function and more than that it is an episcopal teaching function. The fundamental teaching authority in the Church.

The ordinary and universal magisterium, ultimately and through the local ordinary, has oversight over the delegated teaching function of the local pastor and of the local catechists, and even over ordered priests and nuns who teach publicly in the diocese. That gets tricky because not every bishop will teach what is understood at the universal level as truth so that you are not going to find perfection though ultimately you will find the truth.

In that way it is very similar to the sensus fidelium in Orthodoxy. There is room for error and time for correction.

But I think the difference lies primarily in the exercise of ecclesial authority.